FBI Miami shootout: Better Handgun Caliber or better Tactics

[Doug.38PR]

In the FBI shootout 20 years ago, it is noted in this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Miami_shootout%2C_1986 that this shootout lead to the FBI to question the effectiveness of their 9mm and .38 special ammunition and search for a "more powerful" caliber. The 10mm. Now, I am not trying to start a caliber war here. I am actually trying to discourage it.

The .38 Spl+P LSWCHP is a proven manstopper and in fact is known as the FBI load, the 9mm used at the time was probably in the ballpark more or less (although I seem to remember reading recently that the load was a little light at the time of the shooting, 115 gr I think). The 10mm, might increase the chances of dropping someone slightly, but we've heard our share of stories of people getting shot with .45 acp HP ammo and not going down. Some of those men carried .357 magnums which I understand has the same power the 10mm. Anyway, the FBI backed off the 10mm and downgraded to the .40 S&W.

A pistol is a defensive weapon and it's primary purpose is to get you out of trouble.

A rifle or shotgun is what is needed for going on the offensive.

Seems to me, rather than change handgun calibers the solution should have been that when planning to track down known heavily armed criminals in a search, take a little more artillary than just service handguns and a single shotgun. Perhaps ever other man in the FBI party should have been armed with an 870 SG for each car. A rifle in an urban area seems to be a little extreme when you are likely going to be in close range combat.

Back when the FBI and the rest of america was chasing down criminals like Bonnie & Clyde, Machinegun Kelly, Babyface Nelson, John Dillinger etc. they took along a little more than just handguns as said criminals were armed with everything from the Thompson to the BAR.

Hate to get legal and political, but didn't they neglect to inform the local police what they were doing? If you will recall, in the tv movie anyway, the miami police arrived as the firefight was going on in a subdivision having no idea who were the good guys or bad guys or even if there were any good guys (could have been rival gangs in a drug war) and were unable to do anything but watch and wait rather than offer assistance.

[Mossy00]

This was on tv, a reinactment of it, it was pretty interesting. Why FBI officers would be in a car with only revolvers is beyond me. Even police are better armed. Their cars should be equipped with rifles over shotguns, IMO. A rifle is effective at short and long distances, where a shotgun is not. As it was depicted on tv, they came upon the suspects car by accident.

[Doug.38PR]

A rifle is effective at short and long distances, where a shotgun is not.

The only problem with that is overpenetration and bullets spraying all over an urban area.

Back then police generally didn't carry rifles in their cars, only shotguns. Plainclothesmen didn't though, which included FBI. But when you are on a manhunt? sheeze. Was this a History Channel or Court TV documentary you saw?

[Capt Charlie]

Good questions, Doug. :)

If I recall, the original 10mm round as adopted by the FBI was a pretty hot load. Too hot, according to the FBI. They thought female agents had trouble handling it, so they reduced the load to the point that it didn't match the .45 ACP. Somebody finally figured that out and they went to the .40.

As to long guns, it played a major role in a lot of agencies recognizing the importance of the patrol rifle, but the real clincher there was the North Hollywood shootout. I'm going from memory here, but I believe the agents in Miami were in plain clothes and on foot when they approached. The idea was to surprise them, which is typical FBI thinking. The concealment factor played a role there. The FBI didn't put emphasis on heavily armed, highly coordinated special response teams then.

Hate to get legal and political, but didn't they neglect to inform the local police what they were doing?
That was pretty typical of the FBI then, and still is today, in spite of the "share intel" mandate after 9/11.

I almost got in a shootout with 4 FBI agents some 15 years ago. I was working radar on a major city street when I clocked a sedan at 65 in a 35. I lit 'em up & they didn't stop. There were 4 male occupants, and I was about to radio in pursuit when they pulled into a car wash. As I exited my cruiser, all 4 jumped out of the car with guns in hand. I drew, took cover behind the car and ordered them to drop their weapons. (What the hell else could I do?) Just as I thought "here we go", one faced me and fortunately I recognized him. Finally I yelled "what the hell is going on here?"

Seems they had an informant at the car wash wearing a wire for a sting operation on a corrupt corrections officer. Another case of "we can do it ourselves". They rarely ever inform us of an operation on our turf. :mad: So I can well believe that they never informed Miami Metro Dade PD of their operation.

[Crosshair]

My view on it is that it was a combination of:

Bringing a pistol to a rifle fight.
Motivated opponent who was not intimidated by being outnumbered or being shot.
Improper weapon retention by the officers. Several of them lost their primary weapon in the crash and one lost his eyeglasses.
Matix and Platt knew they were being followed and were able to ready their weapons as well as retain them in the crash.

I am sure I am missing something.

[Doug.38PR]

but I believe the agents in Miami were in plain clothes and on foot when they approached. The idea was to surprise them, which is typical FBI thinking. The concealment factor played a role there

Then maybe the thing to do should have been track the criminals under the cover of plain clothes and unmarked cars rather than try to run them off the road and approach them (I think they cornered them or ran them off the road)
Then radio the local police to have nearby patrol cars (equipped with shotguns) standing by to make the arrest.

They rarely ever inform us of an operation on our turf. So I can well believe that they never informed Miami Metro Dade PD of their operation.
And that might be why agents Gerald Dove and Benjamin Grogan are not alive today. It's to the FBI's benefit to cooperate as well. I believe the original intent of the FBI was to assist local law enforcement in investigations which would mean not only informing but working with local authorities. If I remember reading correctly, prior to the mid 30s they used to not be able to make an arrest or even carry arms without the local sheriff or police accompanying them. The rational was that people back then were worried about the FBI becoming a rogue national police force....wonder what ever gave them that idea ;) Not that the FBI shouldn't be allowed to carry arms but from things like the Miami shootout and the personal event you describe we can see some of the wisdom in their thinking.

[Archie]

This 'incident' played heavily in my academy training some two years after the fact. What I was shown was not a made for TV movie, but a documented training film - watched and critiqued by the surviving participants.

The FBI agents had long guns. Shotguns all around, in addition to their service weapons - some revolvers and some autopistols. Part of the problem was the shotguns and 'extra gear' was placed in the back seat of the sedans, typically on the floor. It was out of the way, not obvious, stayed put and was difficult to obtain without the luxury of parking the car and opening the back door.

I cannot remember which, but one villain was neutralized very early in the firefight. The other - the one who did the actual killing - was killed by the first FBI round that struck him. Unfortunately, it didn't kill him for about four minutes. (The first FBI shot fired tore off the tops of both lungs, a non-survivable wound. However, it did not incapacitate him.)

Watching the training film, hearing the Special Agents discussing the encounter, I was struck by one big factor: the FBI Agents were not mentally prepared to kill someone that day. Please don't let this sound like I'm belittling or making light of them or their actions, I'm not. The Agents were ready to find these two villains, to arrest them, to brave gunfire and to get the bad guys off the street. But they were not ready to kill. Lucky for us, they were ready by the end of the fight.

Matix and Platt were way past ready to kill. They had been for some long time.

I'm glad the FBI went to a larger caliber. (I'm not a 9x19 fan at all.) However, like many things done by our government(s), it was largely a public relations device. They 'did something to make our agents safer'. Actually, they did. But the biggest problem to overcome is the reluctance of a decent human being to kill another human being - without becoming a psychopath in the process.

[OBIWAN]

I think it fairly screams Patrol Rifle

I fear that prior to that event the opinion probably was that simply yelling FBI would end most confrontations

The right tools for the right job

[mete]

I wish people would stop referencing wikipedia .There are numerous better sources of analysis of the shootout . They had bad luck. they were mentally and physically unprepared for going up against BGs whom they KNEW were desparate heavily armed men !! They refused to admit they made any mistakes .The best thing that came out of it was the establishment of expansion and penetration criteria for ammo.

[Denny Hansen]

Wow, we're still Monday morning quarterbacking this 21 years later?

As Mete noted, there is much better info than is available on the errornet. A recent book "Forensic Analysis of the Aprill 11 1986 FBI Firefight" by W. French Anderson, MD is but one example. It's available from Paladin Press.

Denny

[Lurper]

Excellent points mete. I wrote a long post with the same points but in greater detail then deleted w/o posting. My point was also they knew the history and level of training Platt and Matix had but chose to take them on w/o bringing more agents to bear.
The bad thing about Wikipedia is that you don't have to know what you are talking about to have input. That leads me to take almost everything I read there with a grain of salt.

[ISP2605]

point was also they knew the history and level of training Platt and Matix had but chose to take them on w/o bringing more agents to bear.
There were more agents out there that day on the same surveillance. It's just they were out of pocket and not close enough to be useful. By the time the additional agents were able to get on scene the shooting was over. The other agents were carrying heavier weapons. In that situation it was just bad luck that the agents that had more effective weapons weren't the ones who spotted Platt and Matix first.
As far as "chose to take them on" it wasn't that simple. The agents didn't chose to take them on. They basically stumbled on to them as they were driving down the road. When the agents began to follow, Platt and Matix pulled over and that's when the shooting began. Platt and Matix picked the time and place, not the agents.

[Lurper]

Not according to the accounts I heard and read; the FBI rammed the suspects car.
Here is one of my sources. Please note that it is not from the internet, it is condensed from a book on the subject.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

[BreacherUp!]

Bums me when I see fellow LEO chiding another Agency for what a few individuals do. All depts/agencies/offices have their fair share of clowns: PD/SO/FBI/DEA/ATF, etc. I too have been in a blue-on-bllue with 2 other agencies. They screwed up. But to say their whole organization sucks based on the actions of a few would be poor in judgement and taste.
But, I see this more and more with internet commandos (even the ones that wear the shield). MMQB, finger-pointing and bad-mouthing has become as pastime with these forums.

[ISP2605]

Not according to the accounts I heard and read; the FBI rammed the suspects car.
Here is one of my sources. Please note that it is not from the internet, it is condensed from a book on the subject.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm
I got my info from a briefing when I attended the NA. Heard from the guys who were there. Also, the FBI did an after action video which went to all field offices. It was not released to the public, certain LEO only.

[Lurper]

ISP:
Here is some more info, please note the source.
Two FBI agents were killed and five wounded in Miami during a confrontation with robbery suspects at approximately 9:45 a.m. on April 11. Prior to the shootings, the Agents, along with officers of the Metro-Dade Police Department, were conducting a mobile surveillance, attempting to locate two males believed to have committed a number of violent bank and armored car robberies. Observing a vehicle matching the description of one that had been stolen and used in previous robberies, an attempt was made to stop the car. When the Agents in three FBI vehicles subsequently forced the suspects’ vehicle to a halt, two males, aged 32 and 34, emerged firing weapons. They used a 12-gauge shotgun with a modified pistol grip stock equipped to fire eight rounds; a .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle with 30 round magazine; and two .357-caliber handguns. The resultant gun battle left the two assailants and two Agents dead, as well as five Agents wounded. The victim Agents, both killed by rifle fire, were 53 and 30 years of age with 24 and 3 years of service, respectively. Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 1986. United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Washington, D.C., 1986, p. 27.

I'm not attacking you, I just want to know if this is what used to be called a "sanitized" version of what happened? Like I said, every account I have seen said the encounter was initiated by the FBI.

[ISP2605]

I'm not attacking you, I just want to know if this is what used to be called a "sanitized" version of what happened? Like I said, every account I have seen said the encounter was initiated by the FBI.
I wouldn't say "sanitiized" but just not explained in detail when he mentions making the stop. They were trying to get the other agents in position but just didn't happen.

[habeuscorpse]

Given the mission and the suspects history, those FBI agents should have been carrying fully automatic weapons like Uzi submachine guns or similar offensive weapons. Like the guy said, they were not prepared to kill that day. But it was one of those occasional days that goes with the job. You don't get your money back.

[Carlo]

After reading the report by Massad Ayoob, I think that day better luck wouldn't hurt either. A lot of things that could go wrong or right went wrong.

Carlo

[DesertShooter]

Bad tactics, poor planning, lackadaisical thinking and supervisorial ineptitude!

Bad tactics: During the "chase" of the suspects, the FBI tried to "box in" the suspects vehicle. That placed the lead and side vehicles in the line of fire. "Boxing in" with vehicles is a very tricky manuever, and the results are often disastrous (i.e., losing control of one or more vehicle, collissions, etc.)

Poor planning: The FBI agents were aware of the fact that the suspects had been armed with either semi-auto or select-fire rifles. Several of the agents were authorized issuance/usage of rifle-type weapons, but chose to only carry shotguns and handguns.

"Lackadaisical" thinking! The FBI agents thought that they were after "just some bank robbers"! Sorry to say, but the FBI had a "We are the FBI, and we can do ANYTHING!" attitude (Uh, sort of STILL present to this day!). One of the major problems with the FBI is that they recruit "College Grads", and rarely get former military or police personnel. The FBI training is excellent, but most "College Grads" are NOT "street wise".

Supervisorial ineptitude: The SAC (Special Agent in Charge), from what I've gathered, was a bit too easy going with the men he worked with. While the agents were required to have their body armor vests "available", the SAC didn't REQUIRE them to wear them during the incident. The SAC didn't hold an inspection of the agents on the morning of the incident, and probably figured that having shotguns and handguns was enough.

Also quite interesting was the lack of visible identification by the FBI agents! Many of the on-looker witnesses who saw the shoot-out taking place didn't know "who is who"! The first uniformed police officers to arrive didn't know, either!

[garryc]

They thought female agents had trouble handling it, so they reduced the load to the point that it didn't match the .45 ACP. Somebody finally figured that out and they went to the .40.

Which is exactly why I refuse to buy a 40 short and weak. I call it a pansy gun. If an agent can't handle the equipment they need to be put in a position where they don't have to. Most can't handle a 10 or a 45 because they won't spend enough range time to perfect it. They should find another job or commit themselves to spending time on the range. A 10mm doesn't kick that hard. Going to a 40 short and weak defeats the reason they chose to up the power in the first place.

[Sarge]

A recent book "Forensic Analysis of the Aprill 11 1986 FBI Firefight" by W. French Anderson, MD is but one example. It's available from Paladin Press.

Denny


Absoultely. If it's worth the effort to argue about this event on the internet, it's worth the effort to get a copy of this work- and end the arguments. If you haven't read this, you need to get a copy.

[Doug.38PR]

While the agents were required to have their body armor vests "available", the SAC didn't REQUIRE them to wear them during the incident.

Since the goon who did the most shooting was using a rifle (Ruger mini-14 .223) body armor wouldn't have done much good anyway (not that they shouldn't have been wearing it...but then they were trying to be inconspicuous which also explains why they weren't wearing any kind of visible ID on their clothing.)

The SAC didn't hold an inspection of the agents on the morning of the incident, and probably figured that having shotguns and handguns was enough.

The inventory on Wikipedia of the incident says there was only one shotgun used by the agents. Somebody else in here said that the other cars did have shotguns in them, so why weren't they out and being used when the agents pounced on the goons?

[Crosshair]

Somebody else in here said that the other cars did have shotguns in them, so why weren't they out and being used when the agents pounced on the goons?
IIRC they kept most of the long guns in the trunk, completely out of reach. Though I could be wrong.

Platt could have easily killed ALL of the FBI agents, however he was more interested in getting away after neutralizing, but not killing, all the immediate threats. Had he "known" he was dead anyway, he would have probably just gone around killing everyone before he finaly died.

[David Armstrong]

Not according to the accounts I heard and read; the FBI rammed the suspects car.
The agents boxed the vehicle in trying to stop it from escaping after they had been ID'd by the bad guys. No ramming per se, IIRC, but there was some contact.
While the agents were required to have their body armor vests "available", the SAC didn't REQUIRE them to wear them during the incident.
Pretty standard for the FBI at that time. Body armor for most feds (and a number of street cops) was something you put on when you were headed out for trouble, not something you wore all the time.
Somebody else in here said that the other cars did have shotguns in them, so why weren't they out and being used when the agents pounced on the goons?
Because the agents hadn't intended to pounce on the goons. The FBI wasn't ready for a shootout, and hadn't planned on a shootout. They were out doing surveillance, with the idea that they would follow the BGs home, then get a team in to take them down. That was fairly standard procedure. Just didn't work out this time. French's book, BTW, is generally considered the best source of what happened during the actual gunfight, but there is some dispute over the events leading up to it.

[Doug.38PR]

The agents boxed the vehicle in trying to stop it from escaping after they had been ID'd by the bad guys. No ramming per se, IIRC, but there was some contact.

If that's the case, I say again, since they were underequipped to take on two heavily armed known killers, why radio the local police patrol cars who were prepared.

[Mannlicher]

groan. Another attribution to wikipedia.

[AR15FAN]

Why keep beating a dead horse? We're all geniuses after the fact, try doing it while its happening with no time to think and see what results you get. And as far as learing from it, in some cases you can but no two scenarios play out exactly the same anyway.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Which I have and have read is that basically "if you can still think and move, then you can still fight; only when your brain or heart stops, or if you choose to give up, does your ability to fight back cease." Thoughout the report Dr. Anderson uses the term "if the will commands" to refer to the amount of punishment a human body can take and still keep going. These bad guys took a lot of well placed hits that would have had the rest of us lying on the ground waiting for help. I think the message for us is: if you are in a fight, don't give up. Also, having more firepower is good but not final either. Read some Medal of Honor citations about soldiers riddled with rifle fire able to still take out the enemy before they died. Ironically if those agents had "known" that both bad guys were "dead men walking" they could have concievably backed off and let them drive a bit down the road where they would have shortly died but that is real Monday Morning QBing. Brave guys those agents.

[David Armstrong]

If that's the case, I say again, since they were underequipped to take on two heavily armed known killers, why radio the local police patrol cars who were prepared.
I assume you meant "why not" radio. Simple. The FBI had no radio contact with the locals, IIRC. You have to remember this in the context of the time. Communication was not anywhere near the capabilities we take for granted to day, nor was the tactical awareness we tend to preach. The tactics were poor in hindsight, but looked at in the context of what was known to them at the time, what they anticipated at the time, and given the time, the agents performed pretty much as one would expect.

[Doug.38PR]

yes I did mean "why not" thank you for realizing that. I apologize for the error.

Well, one of the questions of the original post is "why didn't they inform the local police of what they were doing to begin with?" This caused all sorts of problems that could have been avoided by cooperating with local authorities. You just pointed out another of those problems.

[fixboot]

I cant belive I got thru this ENTIRE thread and not one mention of north hollywood. Thats a good thing!:D

[Doug.38PR]

fixboot,
Captain Charlie said:

As to long guns, it played a major role in a lot of agencies recognizing the importance of the patrol rifle, but the real clincher there was the North Hollywood shootout.

;)

[fixboot]

fixboot,
Captain Charlie said:Quote:
As to long guns, it played a major role in a lot of agencies recognizing the importance of the patrol rifle, but the real clincher there was the North Hollywood shootout.


DAMMIT I missed!:D

[Stretchman]

I think the reason that they ended up having to stop them was because they saw the weapon. That was why they had to initiate the stop.

[Crosshair]

Yea, but the loaded their weapons because they knew they were being followed so they were ready for a fight while the FBI was not.

[tanksoldier]

They were armed with revolvers because that was the FBI issue weapon at the time. They were NOT , however, armed ONLY with revolvers. One of the suspects was shot with a shotgun at least once. The agent with the shoptgun was shot in the arm IIRC and had trouble cyling the slide. Also, the best FBI marksman on the team had his glasses destroyed rendering him virtually useless. Another was holding this weapon between the seat and his leg. In the TC that initiated the encounter the weapon fell to the floor and he spent most of the fight trying to find it. Finally, both suspects were shot multiple times but simply failed to go down.

It should also be noted that the agents planned this encounter without notifying the local PD or enlisting their assistance as backup.

IMO the calibur or type of handgun carried by the agents had the LEAST to do with their problems out of any factor involved.


This was on tv, a reinactment of it, it was pretty interesting. Why FBI officers would be in a car with only revolvers is beyond me. Even police are better armed. Their cars should be equipped with rifles over shotguns, IMO. A rifle is effective at short and long distances, where a shotgun is not. As it was depicted on tv, they came upon the suspects car by accident.

[FM12]

Just like any other good cop(cops), they did the best they could with what they had. None had the intention to go and get outshot, hurt or killed. Hindsight is always 20/20. They responded to a report of the suspects in an area, and had to go with what they had, no time to suit up in shining armor and rpgs. i would have been pleased/proud to been a part of that group. Gunfights may go well in matches, but when the lead is flying, its a different ballgame. I'm amazed at what monday morning armchair quarterbacks can come up with that have never worn a gun as part of their job of cop/deputy/trooper/agent, etc. They were all instantly initiated into the fraternity of GUNFIGHTER, not "gun wearer". My hat is off to them. God bless our cops, and those in military service for the United States of America. FM12, Cop, 30 years proud & counting, US NAVY submarine veteran, 4 patrols (SSBN), US Army(reserves) M.P., three years.

[FAL-schutter]

AR15FAN said:Why keep beating a dead horse? We're all geniuses after the fact, try doing it while its happening with no time to think and see what results you get.As to why, probably because this incidente keeps getting brought up as the example why the 9x19mm is supposedly an inadequate combat pistol round. The counterpoint, that the procedures of the day and the luck of the agents in question also proved inadequate, is not made for the purpose of slamming the agents as it is to point out that such a conclusion rests on oversimplification, and that even if every single one of those FBI agents had been packing .45 ACPs (or those who were carrying .357 magnums had actually loaded them with .357 magnum rounds, rather than .38 Spl +P), there's no reason to assume, all other things being equal, that the situation would have been resolved without loss of LEO life (especially in the case of SA Manauzzi; it doesn't matter what caliber you're packing if the weapon is rendered unusable because you dropped it).

[tshadow6]

The FBI agents involved in that shootout were not supposed to engage. THey were tailing the bad guys to build evidence, not to arrest them that day. I believe the senior agent decided to "take them down" that day. The agents had kevlar vests, MP 5s and shotguns in their trunk. They went in without heavy weapons, or a defined plan. One of the agents actually LOST his 9mm handgun when it fell out of the car. I don't want to denigrate the proffresionalism or bravery of the agents, but they should not blame their screw up on ammunition that hit the target, penetrated as deep as designed and expanded as designed. IMO the .40 is the non-answer to the FBI's mistake. Supposedly, after problems were found with the 10mm the FBI were using, they were quietly issued 9mm pistols.

[Doug.38PR]

Supposedly, after problems were found with the 10mm the FBI were using, they were quietly issued 9mm pistols

I think standard FBI issue from the late 80s to 1998 was the Sig Sauer P226 9mm.

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/leiber/50/DGAAAFED.html

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

The FBI issued 9×29mmR (.38 Special) Colt Official Police and 9×29mmR (.38 Special) S&W Model 13 Military & Police revolvers in the 1980s. Authorised privately-purchased weapons included the 9×33mmR (.357 Magnum) S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum revolver and 11.43×23mm (.45 ACP) SIG-Sauer P220-1 pistol. This situation was finally seen as no longer adequate, and some 1,500 9×19mm SIG-Sauer P226 and 1,000 9×19mm S&W Model 5946 pistols were purchased in 1988, which most field agents never got, however. In 1991, the Bureau received at least 9,500 copies of the 10×25mm S&W Model 1076, which was especially designed for the FBI (as seen in "Twin Peaks"). It was issued with four 9-round magazines, two 11-round magazines and one 15-round magazine per agent. However, the gun turned out to be a complete failure. All were returned to the factory. Thus, some 15,000 9×19mm SIG-Sauer pistols were purchased over the course of the 1990s, most of them P226s. In 1993, the more compact 9×19mm SIG-Sauer P228 was adopted. Agents with very small hands, especially women, could opt for the slimline 9×19mm SIG-Sauer P225. Since January 1998, all new agents are trained on the 10×21mm (.40 S&W) Glock 22 pistol, with the smaller 10×21mm (.40 S&W) Glock 23 for those who prefer it. The ultra-compact 10×21mm (.40 S&W) Glock 27 is authorised as concealed backup. Older agents continue to field their SIG-Sauer pistols, if they wish, and even new agents can switch to the 9×19mm guns if they qualify with them. Several small revolvers are authorised for undercover agents, including the 9×29mmR (.38 Special) S&W Model 10 Military & Police (with 2" barrel), 9×29mmR (.38 Special) S&W Model 38 Bodyguard Airweight (with 2" barrel), 9×29mmR (.38 Special) S&W Model 60 Chief's Special Stainless (with 2" barrel) and 9×33mmR (.357 Magnum) S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum (with 2.5" barrel).

Since 1989, the FBI issued the 9×19mm H&K MP5SFA2 (and MP5SFA3) semi-automatic carbine to field agents. These are identical to the MP5A4 and MP5A5 submachine guns respectively, except for the fact that they are only capable of single shots. Beginning in 1994, they were replaced by the 10×25mm H&K MP5/10A2 submachine gun (offering single shots and 2-round bursts only). In rural areas, semi-automatic 5.56×45mm carbines and rifles such as the Colt CAR-15A2 Model 6520 are used. Only SWAT-qualified agents can field full-automatic weapons. The standard shotgun is the 18.5×70mmR SGT Tactical Response Model 90102 FBI, a modified Remington Model 870 with tactical light and spare rounds holder.

[kgpcr]

I will take a .40 short and week any day over a 9mm! I think its a good ccw choice.

[David Armstrong]

Well, one of the questions of the original post is "why didn't they inform the local police of what they were doing to begin with?"
again, you have to think in the context of the times. The FBI didn't (and still doesn't, BTW) notify the local PD every time they are going out on surveillance or to serve a warrant or any of a number of other things. Law Enforcement is not a perfect world, and while hindsight is 20/20 real life, then and now, says you don't always do things the best way. Of course, even if they had told the local PD they were going out looking for the BGs, what would the local PD have done about it? Heck, lots of times you can't even get the local PD and SO to coordinate stuff!

[M1911]

They were armed with revolvers because that was the FBI issue weapon at the time. At least one of the agents was carrying a 9mm round. He fired the round that hit the perp in the side. The bullet stopped just short of the heart. While it was deemed a fatal wound, the perp wasn't incapacitated immediately. That was what started the whole "9mm is too weak" kick that the FBI started on...

[Willy T]

One thing this shootout did for me is dispel the overpenetration myth for me. Under penetration got those agents killed. Namely from 9mm and .38+Ps. Seriously read the long version. Luckily for me personally original Norma ballistics are readilly available. Its not a magic bullet but best out there if one askes me. ;)

[Edward429451]

It's been a while since I read anything on this incident, but IIRC, Mattix (? the one with the Mini) was amping on Meth? Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?

[Crosshair]

Edward429451

Both of the perps were 100% clean. No drugs in their systems.

[Doug.38PR]

That was what started the whole "9mm is too weak" kick that the FBI started o

back then the 9mm used was REAL light. 115 gr I think. Later I think they upgraded to 124 or maybe even 147.

The .38 Spl. +P FBI load on the other hand is 158 gr and probably would have hit the heart (not sure if that's what was in their revolvers though)

I won't load anything less than that in my .38 Spl. What few times I do carry a 9mm I carry as heavy a load as I can get. I think 147 gr Hydrashoks is the best.

[M1911]

Under penetration got those agents killed.I do not agree. Lots of things got those agents killed. Bad luck. Bad tactics. Overconfidence. Taking a handgun to a rifle fight.

One near-sighted agent lost his glasses in the initial collision. One agent took his handgun out of the holster and placed it between the seat bottom and seatback prior to the collision. In the collision, the handgun flew out of the seat into the footwell; he was reduced to using his J-frame backup. 5-shot J-frame against a trained, determined assailant with a Mini-14 and you've got yourself one big problem.

All handgun rounds have weak. IMHO, focusing on the handgun round misses the more important issues.

[Doug.38PR]

Why did he put his gun on the seat? Why was it not either in his hand or in his holster?

[M1911]

Why did he put his gun on the seat? Why was it not either in his hand or in his holster?He was the driver, so that's why it wasn't in his hand. It isn't clear to me why he took it it out and placed it between the seats. I suspect it was because he wasn't confident in the speed of his draw, so he thought it would be faster.

[bdcochran]

The FBI agents are not trained to be combat shooters. Forget the rah rah stuff protrayed in the officially sanctioned movies. They are also not beat officers. They are largely annonymous civil servants. Until recently, the specialties were catching draft dodgers and breaking up interstate car theft rings. They excelled at that.

Can you shoot in low light, on the run, while starting and continuing to stand or going to the ground? Do you personally practice shooting your firearm from point blank range to 100 yards. I do. The FBI agent doesn't. It doesn't make me better, just tells you that the exposure isn't there.

I sit in the back of a black and white. A decision is made to accelerate and confront an unknown situation in Lot A of the LAX parking lot. I jam my pistol in the gap beween the seat back and the seat because "I know". Why do you expect that an FBI agent would "know" that the car is going to go through gyrations and he might lose the gun on the seat next to him. He hasn't had the exposure.

If you took the ranges in the actual gun fight and shot for the base of the throat instead of center mass, if you were trained to shoot an exposed arm or leg or hand instead of center mass, then you would be ok whether you were shooting a .38 special, 10mm or .45acp. round.

I am not knocking the agents who were in the fight. You are only as good as your training.

A few years ago, I visited with a friend who was in charge of an FBI unit. I asked him to demonstrate how he could draw his unloaded Glock with his weak hand and engage in a simulation that his strong side arm was injured. He couldn't figure it out. Ditto for how to rack an 870 with an arm shot and disabled. If you don't have the exposure in training, it is too late in the field to learn. Brave guys, poor training. For those few reading this posting, ask yourselves how you could handle racking an 870 or drawing a Glock with the weak hand. Then understand, that the FBI agent does NOT learn this in training.:o

[Smokin Joe]

oo oo oo I know.

ask yourselves how you could handle racking an 870 or drawing a Glock with the weak hand

the 870, you hold the pump and shake the gun up and down..

as for the glock, from my shoulder holster Id just use the other hand and undo the snap and pull it out and spin it around.

if it is on the duty holser with triple rentention like I have, oh it'll take a whole while.... also IWb at 4:oo, man thats quite a reach..

[David Armstrong]

Ditto for how to rack an 870 with an arm shot and disabled. If you don't have the exposure in training, it is too late in the field to learn.
And yet Agent Morales did just that. These guys were well trained. At least two were on the local FBI version of a SWAT team, and agents at the time got a fair amount of training in comparison to others in LE. But again (broken record time) you have to keep all this in the context of the times. The officers were as well-trained as most in LE at the time, and that training was/is sufficient for most situations. They hit that once in a lifetime exception situation.

[Denny Hansen]

For the record, I think the agents involved did nothing short of a phenomenal job.

Jerry Dove got a center hit on Platt in a fraction of a second, from a distance of 30 feet while Platt was sliding across the hood of a car! Mcneill got two good hits to Mattix’ face and neck. Orrantia and Risner got hits on a moving target from a distance of almost 100 feet. Mireles got hits with the use of only one arm. All of this with the agents shooting from bright light into a dimly lit area and not on one-dimensional paper targets but on subjects that were shooting back!

Monday morning quarterback this all you want, but ask yourself truthfully if you could have done better in the real world; not from an easy chair in front of a keyboard.

Denny

[Smokin Joe]

Always be prepared is the boy scout saying... They knew suspects were armed and dangerous...

[Doug.38PR]

For the record, I think the agents involved did nothing short of a phenomenal job.

Jerry Dove got a center hit on Platt in a fraction of a second, from a distance of 30 feet while Platt was sliding across the hood of a car! Mcneill got two good hits to Mattix’ face and neck. Orrantia and Risner got hits on a moving target from a distance of almost 100 feet. Mireles got hits with the use of only one arm. All of this with the agents shooting from bright light into a dimly lit area and not on one-dimensional paper targets but on subjects that were shooting back!

Monday morning quarterback this all you want, but ask yourself truthfully if you could have done better in the real world; not from an easy chair in front of a keyboard.


Mr. Hansen
What you say is true. THAT IS PHENOMENAL. Those men in that immediate situation after the trash hit the fan handled themselves well with what they had. (they did come out on top afterall) I certainly won't say I could have done better.
But that isn't the point of this thread. After the shooting, the first thing the experts said "they need a better handgun" (10mm or .40S&W). The point of this thread is planning. What could these men (or more to the point the supervisor of these men) have done to better plan for this or avoid what did happen? They knew these men were cold blooded heavily armed murderers. They went into a long gun fight with handguns. They didn't cooperate or even notify the local police of what they were doing. Hence the title of this thread, "Better Handgun Caliber or better Tactics."

[Bob F.]

Haven't read all the post so maybe I missed it: but IIRC one of the agents emptied his weapon and shot up his reloads, had to go to the car trunk for more ammo. THEN he thought "front sight", stopped BG with head shot and also admitted that he'd WAY miscalculated the range, which shouldn't be a big deal under 50yds, IMHO.

BOb

[Denny Hansen]

Doug,
Denny works for me. Mr. Hansen was my dad.

Part of the title of this thread pertains to tactics, and that's what a lot of people (some who have apparently not researched the incident much) have talked about.

In regards to a better handgun caliber:
We need to keep in mind that the bad guys were driving a vintage Monte Carlo, and almost three decades ago cars were not the cheap sheet metal found in automobiles currently. By modern standards that Monte Carlo was a tank. No handgun round can be expected to get through glass and steel and reliably reach a target inside a vehicle. I have my doubts that the .223 and 9mm rounds out of ARs and MP5s carried by other agents that day, though not at scene of the incident, would have fared much better.

What could they have done differently? IMO very little. The agents were running a rolling surveilance when "made" by Platt and Mattix. The bad guys actions forced the agents to take action at that time for fear of letting them get into a more heavily poplulated area where the chance of innocent bystanders getting injured or possiblly ending up in hostage situation. In short, Platt and Mattix forced the agents hand, and the agents responded as good as they could under less than ideal conditions.

Denny

[AR15FAN]

I think people are too fixated on the tool, rather then the art of using it. A great photographer can make beautiful images with a simple camera while an amateur makes bad ones with the most advanced system. Its the operator, not the tool. This thread is looking for answers in places they don't exist. BTW, Hi Denny.

[njtrigger]

Why didnt they call for backup when they realized a situation existed?

In my neighborhood, when I call the police, they show up within a very short time. I would say less then 3 minutes In the Miami area, Im certain that if a law enforcement agent called for backup there would be at least 10 cars converging on the scene.

I wasnt there and dont know the cirumstances. However, I do know that when one calls the police in most urban areas, they will show up within a few minutes.

Also, the destructive effects of a rifle are well known. If they knew they were going to face rifle toting bad guys, why did they not have the right gear accessible. If it was in the back seat or in the trunk, then thats unacceptable. Any soldier out of basic training knows that there is only one place for your rifle or pistol and thats always within an arm's reach away. A weapon that is locked in the trunk is just as good as having no weapon at all.

So its clear to me that they were not well prepared and believed they could face the situation themselves when back-up units were clearly warranted.

[ISP2605]

Why didnt they call for backup when they realized a situation existed?
They did call for assistance before the stop and the shooting started. By the time the assistance got there it was all over. 3 minutes is a very very long time in a shooting.

[Doug.38PR]

Doug,
Denny works for me. Mr. Hansen was my dad.

Where I come from, when you have been told someone's full name, you call them by their last name until you know them or unless they tell you otherwise. (in short, I wasn't thinking of you as an "old man" just a jesture of respect);) ('course what does it matter on the internet since most of us ID each other as Bob, Joe, Doug with a number or nickname attached.)
That being said since Denny works for you, Denny it is.:)


In regards to a better handgun caliber:
We need to keep in mind that the bad guys were driving a vintage Monte Carlo, and almost three decades ago cars were not the cheap sheet metal found in automobiles currently. By modern standards that Monte Carlo was a tank. No handgun round can be expected to get through glass and steel and reliably reach a target inside a vehicle. I have my doubts that the .223 and 9mm rounds out of ARs and MP5s carried by other agents that day, though not at scene of the incident, would have fared much better.


Denny,
Well that's true, cars back then were not the fragile plastic "environmentally friendly" toys they are today. Still I argue that 1) metal in cars made 30-50 years prior to that were even heavier and stronger than the Monte Carlo or any other 80s era car. I've read of a story back in the 1950s where two secret service agents were in a gun fight with a gang of counterfieters firing on the agents from their car. One agent was using a snub nose .38 spl. standard 158 gr LRN. He soon realized that his bullets were not penetrating the auto body and hitting his target. HOWEVER, his brother in arms near him at the same distance who was using a standard issue 4 inch .38 special shooting the same ammunition DID penetrate the auto body and kill the gunman. The agent with the snubbie later, after being reassigned to protect the President of the United States, went all the way up and bought a four inch .357 magnum revolver (nothing but the best to protect the president). I have heard it said that .38 Special standard did fail to penetrate auto bodies from service guns as far back as the late 60s (one story I heard said a car looked like it had been dented up in a hail storm) I have also have heard it said that the pressure of standard .38 special rounds has been quitely downgraded over the decades. I think a .38 Spl.+P 158 gr round (which some say is equal to or greater than standard 38 spl. 158 gr LRN from 30-40 years ago.) would penetrate an auto body of the 1980s.
2) As far as the .223 round and 9mm rifles go, if a .38 special is capable (with strong enough ammo) of penetrating cars from 50 years ago I would think a high powered rifle or carbine would be able to do the same to an average car from the 80s. 3) The gunman's.223 Ruger Mini14 was pretty effective against the FBI agents that had him outnumbered as they took cover behind their cars.

[News Shooter]

Was why they didn't call for PD backup. Way back in the 70's in Tucson the FBI guys had TPD on their radios and I remember many times hearing an agent calling TPD for a stop or SWAT situation

[njtrigger]

Here are the facts of the Miami shootout that no one ever seems to mention.

The criminals were better trained and armed then the FBI agents. The criminals had full control of their weapons at all times. They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention and their tactics were superior to that of the agents.

The agents, on the other hand, were ill-prepared. They lost control of their weapons and violated a simple rule that we all know. That rule is not to bring a pistol to a rifle fight. Someone said that the agents had shotguns in the trunk or the backseat, but the criminals didnt have their weapons in the trunk.

The way they stopped the criminals was very questionable. They did not have any backup and were stopping persons who were known to be armed and dangerous. Before stopping the perps, they should have had an army of the local police department in tow. Stopping two guys who were known to carry magnums and rifles (with military experience) without backup is questionable. I dont know of any police department that would stop such a crew without at least 25 other assisting officers and SWAT. The FBI agents thought that their small group with pistols would be enough to fend off two armed guys with rifles.

So instead of blaming the agents, they pushed the blame on the bullet. When you look back through military history, there have been plenty of soldiers who took several rounds before being killed. In fact, some of these soldiers even put up a good fight despite multiple gunshot wounds and won medals of honor.

This was the same concept here.

The FBI should have come forward to say that it was their tactics that was at fault and not have readily pushed the fault on the bullet. Im aware that people died and it was indeed a tragedy. However, we need to vent the truth to prevent future tragedies. It was not the bullet that messed up, it was the agents.

[David Armstrong]

The agents, on the other hand, were ill-prepared.
No, the agents were as well-prepared as any other LE officers would have been at that time in history.
The criminals had full control of their weapons at all times. They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention
Again not quite correct. One BG was immediately disabled and unable to operate during almost the entire firefight.
That rule is not to bring a pistol to a rifle fight.
You assume that anyone knew or anticipated a fight of any type. This was a low-key surveillance operation, without any anticipations of a fight.
The way they stopped the criminals was very questionable.
But also pretty much unavoidable. The BGs figured out they had been made, and that changed the dynamics entirely. The choice was either make a less-than-perfect felony stop or let the BGs out of the box to go where the setup could have been far worse.
Before stopping the perps, they should have had an army of the local police department in tow.
Could, should, would. The local police are not going to give the FBI (or anyone else) an army to follow them around when there is no action anticipated.
I dont know of any police department that would stop such a crew without at least 25 other assisting officers and SWAT.
I'm not aware of any police department that will assign 25 officers and a SWAT team to drive around in a pack hoping they will find a BG.
However, we need to vent the truth to prevent future tragedies. It was not the bullet that messed up, it was the agents.
No, the agents were victims of the time and the situation. So far everything you have suggested they should have done literally could not have been done. The agents made a call in response to a fast-developing situation. They did pretty good considering the facts.

[Sarge]

I have looked at this thing upside down, sideways, etc and read Anderson's lengthy and detailed dissection of the event several times. The only thing I too from it was this- if each agent had a slug-loaded pump shotgun in hand when they exited their vehicles, along with 10-15 spares in a pouch or pockets, I do believe they would have solved this problem a lot quicker, and with less (or no) loss of life on the LE side.

That's the lesson I took from this. I already knew that on rare occasions, both people and animals are almost impervious to hits from respectable handguns. It's a shame whenever good officers are killed in the line of duty. It's also a shame if we don't try to learn soimething from it.

[Deaf Smith]

Basicly one should learn this from the shootout:

a) When you are after high risk felons, load for bear (they didn't.) This includes bullet proof vest as well as long arms.

b) If you have bad eye sight, but an excellent shot, make sure there is no way to loose your glasses!

c) It's better to have lots of ammo and not need than to have to little ammo and need it.. bad.

d) If all you have is a revolver, carry two!

I really don't care about the feds upgunning from 9mm to 10mm to .40S&W. It's ho-hum. The failure was not the weapons, but the handling of the situation (but, like david said, for that time period that was done alot.) Hopefully the learning curve has kicked in and when they get an alert for a high risk situation, they prepare for that.

[Jager1]

No, the agents were as well-prepared as any other LE officers would have been at that time in history.

Wrong. The FBI had much better firearms available to agents, considering the objective of the surveillance, that were not used. You don’t send 50 agents to Florida specifically to locate 2 males known to be heavily armed with semi-automatic long arms and that have a propensity for violence and conduct an operation (even a surveillance) armed only with revolvers, 9mm’s and one shotgun. A bad choice was made by whomever was in charge of this operation both in planning and equipment.

Again not quite correct. One BG was immediately disabled and unable to operate during almost the entire firefight.

What does that have to do with weapon retention? Care to comment on the agents weapon retention after they were shot or disabled? We’re talking about the time period leading up to the moment the first shot was fired. That is where the agents made noticeable blunders.

You assume that anyone knew or anticipated a fight of any type. This was a low-key surveillance operation, without any anticipations of a fight.

Again, the FBI sent 50 agents to Florida specifically for this operation. The description of the perpetrators they were attempting to locate and their M.O. was well known by the agents. If the agents didn’t anticipate a fight, as you claim, then what does that say about their decision to engage the suspects, known to have just a little bit of a fight in them? Ignorant bliss? If you are conducting a surveillance – you don’t go crashing in like a bull in a China shop because you just realized the heavily armed suspects “made” you are attempting to flee. With no commo with local PD, what other outcome could there have possibly been? The agents made a strategic blunder from the outset and a horrific series of tactical blunders in being forced to engage.

But also pretty much unavoidable. The BGs figured out they had been made, and that changed the dynamics entirely. The choice was either make a less-than-perfect felony stop or let the BGs out of the box to go where the setup could have been far worse.

How could it have been any worse than it turned out? :rolleyes: Pretty much the worst "getting your ass shot off by the bad guys" episode in the Bureaus history is somehow preferable to allowing the suspects to move off while trying to maintain contact from a distance to allow BU units to converge or breaking off contact altogether and hoping for a better chance another day?

It was absolutely avoidable. It was a surveillance operation, yet no accommodations were made for the very likely contingency that the suspects might identify the agents following them? No thought was given to what might happen if the suspects opted to flee or fight? It was the agents insistence upon engaging once they realized their stealth posture had been compromised that got them shot up.

Could, should, would. The local police are not going to give the FBI (or anyone else) an army to follow them around when there is no action anticipated.

That is precisely what the FBI should have done. Coordinate with local LE to ensure that either they, or the FBI had a team rolling at all times to back up the surveillance officers. Under no circumstances should the surveillance officers have attempted a head-on confrontation with these suspects. Or they should have been more heavily armed. There HAD to be action anticipated. Read up on Platt and Mattix's criminal activities leading up to this shootout.

I'm not aware of any police department that will assign 25 officers and a SWAT team to drive around in a pack hoping they will find a BG.

I’m not aware of any police department or agency that prefers to have several of their officers slaughtered, either. The point is that a TEAM should have, at a minimum, been on call – with the surveillance team under strict orders to not engage.

No, the agents were victims of the time and the situation. So far everything you have suggested they should have done literally could not have been done. The agents made a call in response to a fast-developing situation. They did pretty good considering the facts.

The agents were victims of poor management, planning and decision making in the field. What they should have done was not engage the suspects in such a brazen fashion being armed so lightly in an uncoordinated and impromptu assault methodology. Others have alluded to a mindset or mentality on the part of the agents that was deficient also. I agree that this at least partially contributed to their inability to effectively engage suspects they chose to confront head-on. The facts are that when you have this many agents dead or shot to hell, somebody on the planning end screwed the pooch.

They did pretty lousy, up against one man with a semi-automatic rifle confined to an area of less than 50 feet.

[David Armstrong]

Wrong. The FBI had much better firearms available to agents, considering the objective of the surveillance, that were not used.
Nonsense. The Feds have always had lots of neat toys to play with, but usually they are left in the safe. The FBI agents, as stated, were armed as was typical for officers on surveillance or usual street duty--handguns and shotguns. Some agents did apparently have subguns, but were doing surveillance in another part of town.
What does that have to do with weapon retention?
It has everything to do with: "The criminals had full control of their weapons at all times. They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention." Hard to be in full control of your weapons when you are unconscious during most of the incident.
Care to comment on the agents weapon retention after they were shot or disabled?
Why? Do you think it was an issue?
Again, the FBI sent 50 agents to Florida specifically for this operation.
Yep, and Florida is a pretty big place. In this particular place there were 14 agents covering a 60 block urban area.
then what does that say about their decision to engage the suspects,
Sigh. For about the umpteenth time, the agents didn't go out planning to engage the suspects, they were made by the suspects and that changed the dynamics significantly. The agents were out looking for potential hit sites and with the intentions of tailing the BGs back to their home. Actually encountering them was a bit of a surprise at that time, and one they were trying to work with. In fact, contrary to what some here have claimed, the agents on the scene were trying to get some help from marked units to conduct the takedown. The BGs pushed the situation too fast.
The agents made a strategic blunder from the outset and a horrific series of tactical blunders in being forced to engage.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how much it seems to disagree with the facts.
If you are conducting a surveillance – you don’t go crashing in like a bull in a China shop because you just realized the heavily armed suspects “made” you are attempting to flee.
I'd agree. But as that scenartio has nothing in comon with what happened here, I fail to see its relevance.
How could it have been any worse than it turned out?
The BGs could have escaped, there could have been civilians injured, more agents could have been killed, etc.
Pretty much the worst "getting your ass shot off by the bad guys" episode in the Bureaus history is somehow preferable to allowing the suspects to move off while trying to maintain contact from a distance to allow BU units to converge or breaking off contact altogether and hoping for a better chance another day?
Your ability to 2nd guess after the fact and perform the Monday morning quarterback drill are duly noted.
That is precisely what the FBI should have done.
Again, could-would-should. The reality is that stuff didn't happen then and wouldn't happen now given the same situation.
What they should have done was not engage the suspects in such a brazen fashion being armed so lightly in an uncoordinated and impromptu assault methodology.
Again, it might be nice if your accusations and claims had some relationship to reality. The agents were not lightly armed FOR THE TIME. The assault was not uncoordinated or impromptu, it was done in a coordinted manner at a time the agents thought was best in that situation.
They did pretty lousy, up against one man with a semi-automatic rifle confined to an area of less than 50 feet.
Let's see now...they got several hits on that man, some fairly early in the fight, which were fatal. They did this in an environment with lots of cover and concealement, obscured by a fair amount of smoke, lots of dust, and a huge difference in light levels. All while being shot at. And the area included much more than a 50 foot limit. Perhaps you could have done better. Maybe you will share with us your experience in similar situations?

[K.J.]

Better tactics. When possible wear body armor, have shotguns, and learn how to make a felony car stop.

Having said that, it's been noted that they were originally not out to engage and were trying to get help from marked units. Things happen; situation tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

But would Platt have gone down sooner if his wounds had been inflicted by a 10mm? No one can say, but I doubt it.

[Rifleman 173]

When police officers review the Miami Shootout, most learn that shot placement, the RIGHT (bigger bore size, millimeter and caliber) firearms, communications, forethought and tactics come together as equals. If any one of the items is not right, then police officers die. Same thing applies to civilian shooting incidents too. All too often, police officers and FBI agents are mandated by their agency's in-house rules as to what they CAN and CAN NOT carry on their persons or in their cars. I suspect that the FBI agents in Miami were also so limited to just their duty weapons in spite of what they were trying to do: arrest a pair of armed robbers. In some cases, if you're caught carrying "an unauthorized weapon" then you can be suspended or fired. Most state police agencies and federal agencies are so by-the-book that I wouldn't be surprised if they even have a section that requires the officer to only use very certain names for their newborn children. One agency I knew of even had a VERY specific way to answer the telephone. I've always thought that what killed the FBI agents that day in Miami was NOT something that they did but, instead, something in their agency's local, regional or national rule book forced them into a shootout without the firearms that they really needed. Sort of like the North Hollywood Shootout. Prior to that incident the field cops were NOT allowed to carry rifles, especially scoped ones, in their squad cars. Now they can but look at what it took to force the change to be made...

[Mannlicher]

if its in wikipedia, its probably wrong. My Brother in Law was a Special Agent in Miami at the time. He knew all the guys involved, and had worked the case. His take is much different than most of what has been presented.

[Night Watch]

:) I wasn't going to post; but, it is interesting to see how history can be selectively rewritten and modified to suit the popular opinions and mental prejudice of the day.

I've got a simple read on this: Platt and Matix were mentally, emotionally, AND physically better prepared to get into a gunfight that day. Those FBI agents involved were - for a variety of different reasons - attempting to go into action from, 'well behind the curve'.

I have to wonder whatever happened to those early debriefing reports that clearly pointed out the numerous personal foibles and tactical mistakes made by the FBI that day? (And, like Mannlicher, some of my closest friends are or have been FBI agents.) ;)

If we're going to make a constructive contribution to keeping lawmen alive in combat, then, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a better way to go than attempting to resort to popular myth and fictitious adulation. Neither sentiment nor rationale are going to do anyone any good in an after-action analysis of this sort.

It wasn't their equipment; and it wasn't the caliber(s) they used. Those agents were, simply, outfought by an intellectually superior, and more determined foe who used better offensive tactics and a stronger mental/emotional attitude against them - OK!







That's as much as I'm going to say. I've spent many hours reviewing this gun battle; and, with my considered opinion stated, anyone else who's interested is welcome to complete his own examination and draw whatever conclusions he might prefer. You've, now, heard mine. ;)

[kgpcr]

I know this wont sit well but the 9mm is a **** poor personal defense round. Its fine in a multiple hit weapon ie a sub machine gun but not as a primary weapon.

[pt100]

Heres a thought, maybe the agents were dedicated enough to put their assses on the line so these two vermin would not kill any civillians

[Starsky]

I am not being a smartbutt here in any way. Could the FBI guys have been better prepared weapon wise? YES. Should they have been? YES, but they for whatever reason weren't so they had to work with what they had. But as a retired LEO and as I have stated many times esp in police training. A paper target that is not shooting back is damn easy to shoot at and hit with precision. In real life shootouts are NOTHING like they are in the movies, TV, books and yes even in police training. I venture to say that VERY FEW on this or any other forum have ever been involved in a actual life or death police shootout or in many cases have never even pointed a gun at anything more alive than a B27 target. Coming from one that has I say all of these FBI guys were heros and the caliber of ammo had little to do with anything that day.

[JohnKSa]

I know this wont sit well...It would sit a lot better if it were supported by facts instead of just stated as fact repeatedly without supporting evidence. ;)

[Shawn Dodson]

Capt Charlie writes: If I recall, the original 10mm round as adopted by the FBI was a pretty hot load. Too hot, according to the FBI. They thought female agents had trouble handling it, so they reduced the load to the point that it didn't match the .45 ACP. Somebody finally figured that out and they went to the .40. The FBI load, as adopted by the FBI, was originally developed (handloaded) by John Hall, then Chief of FBI-FTU.

The claim that it was *reduced* because it was too hot and some agents couldn't handle it is untrue.

A 180gr 10mm bullet has the same sectional density as a 230gr .45 ACP bullet. When both bullets are propelled at similar velocity and percentage of expanded diameter is similar, then penetration is similar. Hence the FBI 180gr 10mm subsonic load exactly duplicated the .45 ACP 230gr load.

More info about FBI selection of the 10mm can be found in notes provided by then Assistant Chief of FBI-FTU Urey Patrick: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf

Cheers!

[Capt Charlie]

Thanks for the correction, Shawn. I'd heard what I posted several times, but never was able to confirm it through a reliable source.

I guess that's another candidate for Snopes :D.

[Jager1]

I apologize for the rescuscitation, but I just spotted this thread and wished to address where one forum member opted to address my comments. :)

Nonsense. The Feds have always had lots of neat toys to play with, but usually they are left in the safe. The FBI agents, as stated, were armed as was typical for officers on surveillance or usual street duty--handguns and shotguns. Some agents did apparently have subguns, but were doing surveillance in another part of town.

“Nonsense” would be the DECISION, active or passive, that led to FBI agents carrying inadequate firepower resulting in their getting themselves shot to pieces. The FACT is that these agents were attempting to LOCATE and perform surveillance on two known heavily armed and dangerous suspects. They had to recognize that their cover might be blown and if so, that they might not be up to the task of engaging the suspects head-on on an immediate basis. What OTHER agents had in other parts of town has nothing to do with the agents on the actual battlefield that day. History regarding strategy and tactics is written primarily from the presence, actions and experience of the units in the engagement. NOT units arrayed elsewhere. How many books have been written about the German panzer units deployed well behind the beaches at Normandy on D-Day? A little focus here might prove helpful.

It has everything to do with: "The criminals had full control of their weapons at all times. They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention." Hard to be in full control of your weapons when you are unconscious during most of the incident.

What happened to the bad guys as a result of the force of impact during the chase/impact or after they may have been hit by projectiles or fragments is pretty inconsequential. It is the weapon retention (or lack thereof) on the part of the FBI agents that is the focus of that discussion.

Why? Do you think it was an issue?

Then we are in agreement here. It was the lack of weapon retention on the part of the FBI officers that reduced their ability to fight.

Yep, and Florida is a pretty big place. In this particular place there were 14 agents covering a 60 block urban area.

Where they HAD to anticipate that they might encounter the suspects under less than ideal circumstances and might be forced to exchange fire with them. What you neglect to observe is that these few agents, conducting “surveillance or street duty” CHOSE to pursue and ram or attempt to corner ARMED and DANGEROUS suspects armed with no more than what you state were typical service weapons for their posture. It was a DUMB move and the results of the pressed encounter are evidenced fully.

Sigh. For about the umpteenth time, the agents didn't go out planning to engage the suspects, they were made by the suspects and that changed the dynamics significantly. The agents were out looking for potential hit sites and with the intentions of tailing the BGs back to their home. Actually encountering them was a bit of a surprise at that time, and one they were trying to work with. In fact, contrary to what some here have claimed, the agents on the scene were trying to get some help from marked units to conduct the takedown. The BGs pushed the situation too fast.You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how much it seems to disagree with the facts.

“Trying to work with”? What? The element of surprise having been compromised and at a tactical disadvantage? The bad guys did not “push” the situation. The FBI agents did. They inadvertently detected the suspects and pushed for a “tail” and stop AFTER they knew they also had been detected. Had the agents backed off, there is little doubt the suspects would have fled. Gee, it’s just too bad that the suspects decided not to simply jump into the net, huh?

The “facts” are that the Miami Shootout went down in the annals as one of the worst law enforcement shootouts in history and was studied as such. It was recorded that way because of the mistakes made by law enforcement, NOT any other participants, tools or circumstances.

I'd agree. But as that scenartio has nothing in comon with what happened here, I fail to see its relevance.

That is PRECISELY what happened here. Perhaps you extracted some other conclusion, but the sequence of events and decisions on the part of the agents on scene disagrees with whatever that might be.

The BGs could have escaped, there could have been civilians injured, more agents could have been killed, etc.

Really? How could the bad guys eluding the officers (and as a result, having an unplanned shootout in a residential area where agents were killed) have been a worse outcome? The agents would have now known the suspects were still operating in the area and could have tightened the “60 block” net just a bit more in the hours following the escape, don’t you think? Etcetera this to death, but forcing a unplanned and unexpected confrontation with heavily armed and violent suspects in a residential area is NOT a prudent decision, given the option to back off and cordon off a much more restricted area, with the perpetrators having exposed themselves.

Your ability to 2nd guess after the fact and perform the Monday morning quarterback drill are duly noted.

Ad hominem? I’ve made my point. You failed to make anything of the sort. You are the one projecting the outcome had the agents used some common sense and backed off (The BGs could have escaped, there could have been civilians injured, more agents could have been killed, etc.) The fact remains – agents died and the incident has been recorded as a large blunder on the part of the bureau and an example of what NOT TO DO under such circumstances.

Again, could-would-should. The reality is that stuff didn't happen then and wouldn't happen now given the same situation.

We are not discussing what might happen today. We are discussing what happened THEN. The agents were perfectly capable of avoiding a firefight with heavily armed suspects in a residential area where they should have known their training, tools and deployment were lacking what might be required should things get ugly. Common sense was as available then as it is today. Someone just needed to ensure it made its way into policy or procedure. Absent that, a ‘gung-ho’ mentality prevailed and we see the net result.

Again, it might be nice if your accusations and claims had some relationship to reality. The agents were not lightly armed FOR THE TIME. The assault was not uncoordinated or impromptu, it was done in a coordinted manner at a time the agents thought was best in that situation.

They WERE lightly armed for the MISSION they chose to take on. Even you state that it was their mission to perform detection and surveillance until the prepared units could arrive. Are you claiming that they had no policy or procedure in place in the event the bad guys detected the surveillance and might attempt to flee? What the agents “thought best” was either procedure/policy, wasn’t procedure policy or was a blatant lack of common sense under either circumstance.

Let's see now...they got several hits on that man, some fairly early in the fight, which were fatal. They did this in an environment with lots of cover and concealement, obscured by a fair amount of smoke, lots of dust, and a huge difference in light levels. All while being shot at. And the area included much more than a 50 foot limit. Perhaps you could have done better. Maybe you will share with us your experience in similar situations?

This has nothing to do with my level of experience in similar situations. These were trained (supposedly) FBI agents that were assigned and tasked to detect, perform surveillance and apprehend specific suspects who were provided intelligence and a PLAN to do so. It’s pretty obvious that their training, tools and tactics were not up to the task. They CHOSE to pursue the suspects and attempt to detain and apprehend them where the suspects had ample warning that a confrontation was coming. The results of such poor planning and tactics speak for themselves.

Because the agents hadn't intended to pounce on the goons. The FBI wasn't ready for a shootout, and hadn't planned on a shootout. They were out doing surveillance, with the idea that they would follow the BGs home, then get a team in to take them down. That was fairly standard procedure. Just didn't work out this time.

It's not that it "didn't work out this time". It's because they made a conscious DECISION to deviate from the plan and they got their backsides handed to them on a platter. As a result, the Bureau, and LE in general, learned some valuable lessons.

[Th0r]

They were outgunned, and they probably shouldnt have been using handguns. I certainly think the handgun use and caliber should have been questioned. The FBI shootout sounds like a North Hollywood to me.
Ill thought out by the police/FBI.

[David Armstrong]

“Nonsense” would be the DECISION, active or passive, that led to FBI agents carrying inadequate firepower resulting in their getting themselves shot to pieces.
Do you really think the agents intentionally decided to carry around inadequate firepower? Probably not. I think we can take the agents at their word about what they were thinking and why they did things. The firepower was normal for the time and assignment, and considered perfectly adequate.
The FACT is that these agents were attempting to LOCATE and perform surveillance on two known heavily armed and dangerous suspects.
Right, LOCATE AND PERFORM SURVEILLANCE, not actively engage.
What happened to the bad guys as a result of the force of impact during the chase/impact or after they may have been hit by projectiles or fragments is pretty inconsequential.
True but that wasn't the issue. What was being discussed was the incorrect claim that "They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention".
Then we are in agreement here. It was the lack of weapon retention on the part of the FBI officers that reduced their ability to fight.
No, we are not in agreement here. You might want to go back and read the backnotes here. My comment was in response to "Care to comment on the agents weapon retention after they were shot or disabled?" After they are already shot or disabled the retention issue is somewhat moot. Of course, IIRC only one agent had retention issues, so it is somewhat moot on that point also.
Where they HAD to anticipate that they might encounter the suspects under less than ideal circumstances and might be forced to exchange fire with them.
Again, all the available information indicates that is just not correct.
It was a DUMB move and the results of the pressed encounter are evidenced fully.
It was the result of a quck decision that lead to a once in a decade (or more) result. Not dumb, just the lesser of evils as they understood it at that time. It's nice to sit here years later and play Monday-morning quarterback after getting all sorts of info the guys on the scene having to make that quick decision did not have.
The bad guys did not “push” the situation. The FBI agents did.
Facts are troublesome things, but they should not be ignored. The BGs pushed the situation by grabbing weaponry and readying it. The FBI had to change things to respond to the changing threat.
Had the agents backed off, there is little doubt the suspects would have fled.
Yes, and the fear was that could lead to a far worse situation. Do you think the FBI should have just let the BGS go entirely? Or let the BGs get to someplace with better cover, or hostages, or more weapons?
The “facts” are that the Miami Shootout went down in the annals as one of the worst law enforcement shootouts in history and was studied as such.
If by "worst" you are meaning "incompetent" or something similar I must have missed that in all the research. But what do I know? I mean, I've just read the actual after-action reports, the officers statemetns, the forensic analysis, and stuff like that. I know in the popular press there have been some pretty wild claims, but in the professional LE field I don't remember seeing that.
That is PRECISELY what happened here.
No, it is not even particularly close.
Really? How could the bad guys eluding the officers (and as a result, having an unplanned shootout in a residential area where agents were killed) have been a worse outcome?
More agents killed, bystanders killed, hostages taken---lots of things could have happened.
Ad hominem? I’ve made my point.
Huh?? You are 2nd guessing the agents on the scene. It is what is commonly referred to Monday morning quarterbacking. Nothing ad hominem about that at all. As for your point, yes, you've aptly demonstrated how little you understand about LE in general and this incident in particular.
We are discussing what happened THEN.
Yes. And when discussing what happened then and why, it should be looked at in that context. What was the philosophy, the tactics, the accepted procedures, etc. at that time.
They WERE lightly armed for the MISSION they chose to take on.
No they weren't, and no matter how many times you say otherwise it doesn't change things a bit. Virtually any group of officers at that time, armed with shotguns and revolvers, would not be considered lightly armed.
This has nothing to do with my level of experience in similar situations.
Actually it does. You claim they did a lousy job AND you mis-state the facts. Some experience on your part might help you understand that they did a pretty good job given the circumstances.
It's not that it "didn't work out this time".
Yes, it is exactly that it didn't work out this time. The agents were doing something that had been done hundreds or thousands of times before, by hundreds of different officers, according to tactics, training, and procedures common at the time. It usually was (and still frequently is) the right thing to do. You are right in that we did learn some lessons, but to try to fault the agents because they hadn't learned those lessons yet is somewhat questionable, IMO.

[Perldog007]

Better caliber or better tactics?

YES!!!

That is what happened. Better calibers now out there. One of the survivors is/was an instructor out at Quantico to improve tactics.

[David Armstrong]

Better caliber or better tactics?
YES!!!
That is what happened. Better calibers now out there. One of the survivors is/was an instructor out at Quantico to improve tactics.
Exactly. The agents did what they had been trained to do with what they had been given. Thanks to them we learn and improve both the tools and tactics. Miami, North Hollywood, Norco, etc. all have their costs, but all make us better in the long run.

[Jager1]

David,


I'm not debating their armaments for their assigned mission. I am saying that, once they were detected by the suspects, they deviated from that mission and the results were less than ideal. I'm also not debating their training, skill levels, department weapon/ammunition choices...I am simply pointing out that under the circumstances, the choice to pursue, attempt to detain/arrest these subjects was obviously not the best one if it resulted in dead/wounded agents.

I do note that you are persistent in your claim that citizens could have been wounded, taken hostage or that things could have gotten worse had the agents not chosen to be confrontational with the subjects Platt and Mattix. Ironically, in recent threads here on the forum, where the topic revolves around BG's having a firearm and are menacing store clerks (or other citizens) you seem to propose a non-confrontational position by someone (an armed citizen) witnessing it. Have your thoughts changed since the Miami Shootout discussion? Just curious. Because I see a disparity of thought.

The agents firepower was inadequate to directly engage two armed subjects with the profile these two had been assigned. This was evidenced by the results.

Right, LOCATE AND PERFORM SURVEILLANCE, not actively engage.

And they violated this mission profile and the results were less than ideal.

Again, all the available information indicates that is just not correct.


You are an agent assigned to actively identify/locate known armed and violent subjects and never conjure the idea that you might stumble upon them and that the subjects might try to flee or actively resist? That somewhere in the briefing that this was not identified and a contingency plan made clear to the agents? I guess Murphy's Laws of Combat and a plan not surviving actual contact with the enemy hadn't been stumbled upon in 1986?

It was the result of a quck decision that lead to a once in a decade (or more) result. Not dumb, just the lesser of evils as they understood it at that time.

Semantics. The incident did NOT gain notoriety because agents chose the lesser of two evils "as they understood it at the time". It gained notoriety because of multiple factors, not just firearm selection and tactics. It was also studied because of some of the choices made by the agents on the whole and their individual choices. I think the agents did quite well considering the seemingly high level of luck the perpetrators enjoyed, all things considered. I'm not Monday-morning-quarterbacking anything outside of their choice to confront and engage two heavily armed and determined subjects where the agents themselves were lightly armed, were caught unprepared and off-balance, had lost the element of surprise, had been able to gather little intelligence regarding the subjects in the moments leading up to the choice to confront the subjects, were having communication and backup issues and seemed to have very little in the way of spare ammunition, just to name a few. Ignoring that these issues played a major role in the outcome of the engagement does not lead to the best discussion of the topic. The original question was whether it was handgun caliber or tactics. Although the actual answer is not that simple, given the two choices, it was certainly tactics that led to the outcome that was experienced.

And when discussing what happened then and why, it should be looked at in that context. What was the philosophy, the tactics, the accepted procedures, etc. at that time.

And either the agents adhered to them and were failed by them, or they did not and failed themselves. The research I have done leads me to believe it was a combination of both and not so black and white to the contrary, as you seem to prefer to have others believe.

Virtually any group of officers at that time, armed with shotguns and revolvers, would not be considered lightly armed.

When attempting to corner and confront suspects armed with semi-automatic long-arms, evidenced military training and an understood willingness to use both, the CHOICE to do so, when armed thusly, comes into question.

If by "worst" you are meaning "incompetent" or something similar I must have missed that in all the research.

What you missed is my exact point. The Miami shootout was/is one of the worst shootout incidents involving LE this country has witnessed. Are you claiming it wasn’t/isn’t?

Actually it does. You claim they did a lousy job AND you mis-state the facts. Some experience on your part might help you understand that they did a pretty good job given the circumstances.

I am saying nothing of the sort. I’m saying they could have made better decisions, even circa 1986. Making the decision to tackle these suspects while knowing their disposition and being armed as they were, the agents had to know the dangers. Mindset was a big factor in how this played out on BOTH sides. A determined foe, armed even in parity, can be a deadly adversary as these agents found out, let alone when equipped with superior weaponry and tactics. The agents actions were heroic, and quite amazing considering what they found themselves confronted with, albeit through their own choosing or direction.

Had one of the suspects not been incapacitated early on and had been equally armed with a semi-automatic rifle and determined – it stands to reason that the Miami Shootout might have been dubbed the Miami Massacre.

The mere fact that the incident had to be studied and so many changes required in equipment, tactics, communication and coordination with other agencies since is indicative that mistakes were made, at a minimum at the leadership and command structure levels. Further, the actions of the individual agents can also be criticized as even the literature available to the public indicates.

I am not condemning the officers for not adhering to policies/procedures/tactics or equipment load outs developed long since the actual event. In fact, I’m not condemning anybody. I am, however, critical of anyone, especially a member of LE that would make the decision to directly confront such subjects on a public street with no imminent threat to the public while not prepared or equipped to contain and subdue a situation that had all the propensity to get out of hand. Which it almost did and at the cost of life and limb.

I sense you are reading criticisms from me where there are none.

I can see that you have your opinion and I have mine and that neither of us is likely to sway the other. That's fine. I can't help but notice that you duck the point that the agents, with a tasking to investigate, possibly locate and perform surveillance, once detected, chose to pursue and detain/arrest suspects that were known to be violent, trained and heavily armed - and they did so in a residential area. That these were FBI agents, not some Podunk PD first year detectives investigating a local bicycle theft ring – and they had to anticipate the level of experience and determination of individuals who had robbed banks, armored cars and had the brazen audacity to rob armed people of their firearms. And they opted to do this with revolvers with .38 Special +P loads, 9mm’s and one pump shotgun, none of which had numerous reloads. THAT had to be a salient point even the most inexperienced evaluator would take notice of in the preliminary stages of any investigation into the altercation.

To imply or state that these points did not surface in the after-action investigation and discussions since is questionable at best and a disservice to the officer’s contributions at worst. I admire these agents for their determination and sacrifice. They are true heroes in my opinion. But cloaking them in the impenetrable veil of “They were protecting the public and were solely victims of the times” is not going to fly with me. Common sense existed in 1986. As did individual thought. Likewise mindset. These most certainly played a significant factor in the events that transpired when these two entities collided.

[Rifleman 173]

One other thing... The FBI is notorious among local cops for being too secretive. They are more than happy to take any information that the locals have BUT they're never going to pass information back down. The FBI kept secret a whole bunch of information to themselves about Matix and Platt until the shootout was pretty much over. By then their secret-keeping attitude almost got more agents shot and killed because the local Miami P.D. had no idea what was going on until civilians called in to report that there were a bunch of men, armed with guns shooting each other up in a residential area. When the uniformed Miami officers got to the shootout, they had FBI agents walking around in civilian clothes with weapons out and no identification showing which meant that the uniforms drew down on the FBI guys until things got straightened out. The whole Miami shootout was one bad tactic after another bad tactic. It is sad to say that the FBI lost agents that day to bad tactics but it happened. I bet that J. Edgar Hoover was spinning like a whirling dervish in his grave that day. Stuff like that would NEVER of happened if Hoover had been in charge of the FBI at that time period.

[IdahoG36]

FBI Miami shootout: Better Handgun Caliber or better Tactics

I think that if the agents were equipped with our modern hollow point loads, their 9mms would have been more effective at quick incapacitation. Defensive handgun loads and bullet designs have improved greatly over the last 20 years. If you look at the ballistic data for Winchester's 127 gr +p+ Ranger, it is quite impressive, in both penetration depth and expansion. Federal's 115 gr +p+ is another impressive load. These rounds have made the 9mm a much more effective fighting caliber.

I don't neccesarily think that a caliber change would make things much different now, but 20 years ago, I would say it would have. Older 9mm loads weren't the greatest fight stoppers, you just had more round capacity then any other chambering of the time. If they were equipped with 230gr ball .45 acp instead of 9mm, or 125gr jhp .357 magnum over the .38 special, things could have possibly turned out differently.

[Hook686]

yes.

[Tamara]

Let's bear in mind that it's only in retrospect that we know that Platt and Matix were insane ninja death zombies. Up to that point, all the FBI agents knew is that they'd back-shot a rent-a-cop and bushwhacked some guy plinking in the swamp. That's hardly "Killer Kommando" stuff. The agents knew that there were eight of them with more on the way, and only two bad guys who might twig to the surveillance and do something unpredictable. In retrospect, I'd have probably made the same call they did.

What they needed wasn't better guns or bullets or tactics or the 82nd Airborne (although all that stuff would have been nice); what they needed was better luck, and that's hard to get made-to-order.

[Art Eatman]

While I agree with the fundamentals of Tamara's comment, lemme add some 20/20 hindsight perspective:

There seems to have been a certain amount of "attitude" of "Me FBI; you, punk." This is just based on reading of the overall behavior of the various agents who were involved. My opinion on this is obviously open to error. Anyway, this could have led to a certain lack of thinking ahead, a lack of appropriate wariness.

I've worn glasses for decades. I deliberately chose the aviator style frames where the earpiece wraps around my ear for better security. When I canoe on a river, I add the little security-gizmo strap. Note that one agent's glasses were reported to have been jarred loose and he couldn't find them.

I've done a bunch of car racing, with a couple of hard impacts. Stuff flies around at impact, seat belts or no. It was reported that one agent had put his firearm on the seat and then had an impact. Hey, even just a rough jeep trail can sometimes have a nine-pound rifle bounce off the ceiling of my pickup's cab.

This is not to talk about fault so much as to point out those little things that can screw up your world.

To me, certain sorts of care and precautions are warranted as built-in reflexes from having given thought to "What if...?"

[JollyRoger]

Just to toss in my $.02:

The FBI is getting bashed on a few points here that might be unjustified. Remember that the agents here were spread out over several miles, trying to spot a vehicle that MIGHT be showing up. Lots of banks on the highway they were cruising. There was only a very small chance they were going to come across these guys: a higher probability might have justified SWAT participation rather than just the bank robbery squad, but as a practical matter they might have been doing this type of surveillance for a number of days and as FBI SWAT are part-timers (they work cases), they couldn't tie them up like that. As posted above, the objective was to surveill the bad guys until they set down and an arrest could be planned. When conducting a rolling surveillance, especially in a place like Miami where the weather does not allow big coats, you have to be dressed in a manner which will allow you to go from vehicle to foot surveillance in a matter of seconds in case the bad guys are using a switch vehicle and walk through a shopping mall to a separate parking lot and vehicle, or in case they split up with one on foot and another using the car. This pretty much rules out vests, raid jackets, and quickly accessible long weapons (since they would have to be left unsecured in the car if an agent went on foot - a big Bureau no-no.)

Speaking from experience, if you are trying to surveill a surveillance conscious subject even with multiple vehicles, you are pretty much going to run into a situation where you have a choice between dropping off or getting made. This situation was tougher because the vehicles were strung out over a large area, and because public safety dictated the agents following the bad guys (Grogan and Dove) could not drop off, as the bad guys were not just drug dealers or petty criminals, they were killing people. Since Grogan and Dove had no close vehicle to switch off with, and Platt and Mattox were surveillance conscious (driving extremely slow to spot a tail), Grogan and Dove were spotted, and Platt and Mattox overtly loaded weapons and started pointing them at the agents. Could they have dropped off and taken the chance of relocating the bad guys in the area once backup made it there? Sure. Their dedication got them killed because they knew how bad these guys were and could not afford to leave them on the loose, a decision made in a split second. I hardly think it justified to characterize this as a case of arrogant agents thinking "me, FBI. you, punk."

Regarding weapons, the agents with the 9mm's were some of those SWAT agents who work cases. The rank and file were not permitted autos, and in 85, the majority were still issued Model 10's in .38SPL, although some Model 13's in .357 may have been out by then, and personal weapons in .357 were permitted such as McNeil's model 19 and Mirele's L-frame. .357 rounds were not routinely issued, however, .38 +p were, and the FBI doesn't allow personal ammo either. Shotguns were issued on request and availability, but not rifles. SWAT could use rifles, but at that time the M16's used were not widely available even to SWAT, and since they could go full auto, they were not routinely maintained in vehicles. Platt on the other hand had a mini-14 and was nuts about it. Subsequent investigation showed he fired something like a thousand rounds a week in the Everglades playing with it. Unfortunately, he was real good with it, and was motivated, judging by his continued action with a fatal wound.

Some errors were obviously made by individual agents, but in law enforcement "the plan" routinely goes to sh** within about ten seconds of the call to execute. A committed, skilled bad guy can do a lot of damage because he doesn't have to play by the same rules as the good guys, he gets to pick many of the circumstances of the fight, and he has the option to quit at any time.

[Erik]

"FBI Miami shootout: Better Handgun Caliber or better Tactics?"

Better tactics, and that is how the lesson plan on this particular incident is largely taught. The plan, as already noted, is largely the work of the survivors and a failry competent peer review process.

[kgpcr]

Better round. I dont like 9mm for any combat shooting. Give me a .40 or a .45 any day. Just my .02

[Th0r]

Heres a thought, maybe the agents were dedicated enough to put their assses on the line so these two vermin would not kill any civillians
Couldnt have put it better.

The FBI agents were just in the wrong situation at the wrong time. But we should be thankful they are people who would put their lives on the line for others.

[Group9]

People keep glossing over that this happened over 20 years ago. I keep expecting someone to wonder why they didn't just whip out their cell phones and call the local PD while they were rolling along.

To the people here who are under forty years old, believe it or not, it was still not that common to wear ballistic vests, even for patrol officers in 1986. Almost all LEO's were still armed with revolvers back then. Cell phones were the size of toolboxes and cost about a $1 a minute to talk on. There were no de-confliction systems like NINJA, Safety-Net, etc. to let agenices with concurrent jurisdicdtions know what each other was up to.

And, most importantly, it was still relatively uncommon for heavily armed criminals to take on the police rather than giving up or running for it.

People say these agents were untrained without being old enough to know that this event was one of the things that caused police training to get a lot more effective and realistic.

Arguing whether better tactics or better weapons would have made this incident come out better glosses over the fact that this incident is the primary reason that officers have better tactics and better weapons today than they did 20 years ago. Like the Hollywood shootout, this was one of those defining incidents that made law enforcement wake up to some changes that needed to be made.

Anyone reading this should just be hoping that they would have done as well as these agents did with the training and equipment that were common at the time, if they had been there.

[Tamara]

Like I've said before, the biggest lesson to draw from Miami is that "some days you get the bear, and some days the bear gets you." :o

[Perldog007]

Like I've said before, the biggest lesson to draw from Miami is that "some days you get the bear, and some days the bear gets you."

Precisely why I like working in a warehouse and letting others chase bears. :)

Think it is interesting to examine those kinds of events and sometimes practical to know what happens in those situations we hope we never face.

Still think the answer is yes, better tactics and better weapons are two things that have been implemented by the folks involved.

[David Armstrong]

I am simply pointing out that under the circumstances, the choice to pursue, attempt to detain/arrest these subjects was obviously not the best one if it resulted in dead/wounded agents.
And I am pointing out that they had to make that decision quickly, based on the info they had, and that all this second-guesing is just that, second-guessing. The agents felt that letting the BGs get away or get to a position of their choice would have been a worse option.
I do note that you are persistent in your claim that citizens could have been wounded, taken hostage or that things could have gotten worse had the agents not chosen to be confrontational with the subjects Platt and Mattix. Ironically, in recent threads here on the forum, where the topic revolves around BG's having a firearm and are menacing store clerks (or other citizens) you seem to propose a non-confrontational position by someone (an armed citizen) witnessing it. Have your thoughts changed since the Miami Shootout discussion? Just curious. Because I see a disparity of thought.
No disparity. There is a world of difference between engaging an armed robber who has not killed anyone or threatened you and engaging a team of robbers who have already indicated they are willing to kill and have killed on at least one previous occassion.
The agents firepower was inadequate to directly engage two armed subjects with the profile these two had been assigned. This was evidenced by the results.
HUH?? Given that same firepower virtually any cop in the country at that time would have felt more than adequate.
And they violated this mission profile and the results were less than ideal.
So? Again, hindsight is nice, but mission profiles do change, and change rapidly.
Semantics.
Nope, not semantics. Good reasoning based on facts.
I'm not Monday-morning-quarterbacking anything outside of their choice to confront and engage two heavily armed and determined subjects where the agents themselves were lightly armed, were caught unprepared and off-balance, had lost the element of surprise, had been able to gather little intelligence regarding the subjects in the moments leading up to the choice to confront the subjects, were having communication and backup issues and seemed to have very little in the way of spare ammunition, just to name a few.
OK, then you are Monday-morning quarterbacking, and your opinion of what happened and why does not agree with the facts as stated by the agents involved and the evidence of the scene.
The research I have done leads me to believe it was a combination of both and not so black and white to the contrary, as you seem to prefer to have others believe.
And what research have you done? There is a lot of stuff out there, but not a lot of real info in the public domain outside of Anderson's.
What you missed is my exact point. The Miami shootout was/is one of the worst shootout incidents involving LE this country has witnessed. Are you claiming it wasn’t/isn’t?
Again, how are you defining "worst", as it is not clear to me.
I am saying nothing of the sort. I’m saying they could have made better decisions, even circa 1986.
Could, would, should. I'm saying the agents made an appropriate decision based on the information available to them at the time. Anything beyond that is pure speculation, and somewhat disengenous, IMO.
The mere fact that the incident had to be studied and so many changes required in equipment, tactics, communication and coordination with other agencies since....
This is just another example of that mis-statement of facts i mentioned. Yes, changes have been made in equipment and so on. But to attribute that to this event is just not accurate. Most changes in equipment have come about because the equipment available has changed. Communication abilities have improved. Inter-agency coordination has been enhanced. New tactics are emphasized. But most of that would have come about without the incident in Miami.
I am, however, critical of anyone, especially a member of LE that would make the decision to directly confront such subjects on a public street with no imminent threat to the public while not prepared or equipped to contain and subdue a situation that had all the propensity to get out of hand.
And given the facts of the case your criticism is unwarranted and amounts to Monday-morning quarterbacking. The agents made the stop where they did because they felt it was the best they were going to get, trying to minimize the threat to the public. As for preparation, again yo seem to keep ignoring the fact that they were as prepared and equiped as virtually any other LE group would have been at that time and given that assignment.
I can't help but notice that you duck the point that the agents, with a tasking to investigate, possibly locate and perform surveillance, once detected, chose to pursue and detain/arrest suspects that were known to be violent, trained and heavily armed - and they did so in a residential area.
I haven't ducked it at all. As I've pointed out the agents were made by the BGs and then had to adjust and change their goals on the fly. "No plan survives contact with the enemy" is quite appropriate here.

[Jager1]

As I've pointed out the agents were made by the BGs and then had to adjust and change their goals on the fly. "No plan survives contact with the enemy" is quite appropriate here.

And as a result, the agents got their backsides handed to them on a platter where a bit of common sense and humility (by not pursuing and attempting an immediate stop) might have offered more favorable odds.

Mindset certainly played a part in the choice to engage the suspects in the manner the agents did. The suspects simply didn't "roll over" and play dead (well, at least one of them didn't). They "changed their goals"? Is that criminal justice degree lingo for "They overreached and got the stuffing knocked out of them?"

The entire incident CAN certainly be analyzed and criticized based upon the bureaus choices, leaderships decisions and those made by the individual agents at the time. And it was on many levels at the time and still gets discussed even decades later, as we can see.

...were caught unprepared and off-balance, had lost the element of surprise, had been able to gather little intelligence regarding the subjects in the moments leading up to the choice to confront the subjects, were having communication and backup issues and seemed to have very little in the way of spare ammunition, just to name a few. Ignoring that these issues played a major role in the outcome of the engagement does not lead to the best discussion of the topic.

Sounds to me like they had no contingency plan whatsoever and that "changing goals" without proper prior planning had them suffering some drawbacks, to say the least.

Enough evidence is out there in the public domain to surface the questions, observations and criticisms that can be witnessed by attendees on many firearm and law enforcement discussion forums. To claim some clandestine knowledge and offering "trust me, I've seen the reports" as some type of moral authority as to which questions have been sufficiently answered and criticisms addressed is condescending and disingenuous at best. THAT rings of Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest.

"Sit down, shut up and listen, citizen".

Thank you John Madden. ;)

[FM12]

Jager: Tell us of the shoot outs you've been involved in, were they more of a SWAT environment like the FBI shoot-out currently discussed, or more of a one-on-one type scenario? Maybe even both, perhaps?

I'm anxious to find out where you train also, I might be interested to try some of their courses. LEO academy, private, like Gunsite, thunder Ranch, etc?

It's been a long time (1978) since I graduated the police academy, and could surely use some refresher training.

Thanks in advance, FM12

[Covert Mission]

For the record, I think the agents involved did nothing short of a phenomenal job.Jerry Dove got a center hit on Platt in a fraction of a second, from a distance of 30 feet while Platt was sliding across the hood of a car! Mcneill got two good hits to Mattix’ face and neck. Orrantia and Risner got hits on a moving target from a distance of almost 100 feet. Mireles got hits with the use of only one arm. All of this with the agents shooting from bright light into a dimly lit area and not on one-dimensional paper targets but on subjects that were shooting back!

I agree. I think there is one truth evident here: Mr. Murphy is often the first one through the door, or on the scene. This takedown/surveillance did not go according to plan, and the agents were behind the power curve, in no small part due to Platt & Matix already having decided they were going to kill rather than be arrested, and were well-prepared to do so. In the OODA loop, they were already one or two steps ahead of the FBI agents. That said, those agents fought so bravely under withering fire that I am in awe.

Better SOPs are a product of evolution and experience, and unfortunately sometimes good officers are killed in the process, before their mistakes or flawed tactics can be used to train others, so it seems. As Dave Armstrong says, you have to keep the context of the times in mind too. Ex: The CA Highway Patrol had the infamous Newhall shooting change their firearms training SOPs. One of the dead CHPs was found with his spent brass in his pocket. In the middle of a gunfight (using revos), he caught his empties and put them in his pocket. Why? Because that's what they did in practice, so the range would stay nice and neat. That was when the "do it in training the way you should do it for real" idea really took hold. Practice like you'd have to fight. Today, those Miami FBI agents would have probably been SWAT members, armed with ARs and MP5s, body armor on, better trained and ready to rock, etc.

This is not to talk about fault so much as to point out those little things that can screw up your world. Exactly, Art. That's why you play the "what if" game, to try to anticipate what you would do if...

I'm just a lowly reserve deputy, but I always try to tell myself, on every traffic stop or seemingly innocent call, "This could be the one." As a Marine friend told me, "Always be polite, professional, but have a plan to kill everyone in front of you." Sounds extreme to a non-LEO or sheeple, but it could save your life. As Dave A says, "No plan survives contact with the enemy" but you'd better have some kind of a plan anyway, or better, A, B, C etc, and be able to switch pronto.

disclaimer: I'm no HSLD dude, in fact LSHD! Interesting topic though, and I've read about, discussed, and pondered it and other incidents a fair bit.

[Retired]

FM12,

I agree with you.

My police academy was in 1978. I remember seeing the FBI reenactment video that was distributed after the 1986 shooting, and I read Dr. Anderson's excellent forensic analysis. Since then I've also read most of the reports available online.

I've always had one strong opinion about this incident: The agents involved all were very brave men, willing to risks their lives to protect the public.

[FM12]

RETIRED: Yeah, 1978. 30 years ago, as of right now, as a matter of fact.

Geeze, if I had known I'd live this long I'd taken better care of myself and would have trained more!

Back then then, the main training we had on this was the Newhall incident. Scared the bejeebers out of me, but i STILL find myself shucking my empties into my hand when I shoot my revolvers.

Old habits do, indeed, die hard.:(

They were indeed brave men. Gunfights don't always go as planned, or even as we wish they would.

After watching the movie, I'm amazed no others died, and that no civilans were killed (as fa as I know).

God bless America, and those who keep her protected, here and abroad.

[Jager1]

It's been a long time (1978) since I graduated the police academy, and could surely use some refresher training.

Of that I have little doubt. ;)

[Jager1]

...those agents fought so bravely under withering fire that I am in awe.

Exactly. :)

[Perldog007]

We all make mistakes, it's what you do afterwards that counts.

Lack of fortitude was not a problem to my understanding.

The FBI revamped the gear and the tactics. I can find no reason to fault them in this incident.

[Para Bellum]

better placement.

...and don't fight assault rifles with handguns.
- Get a rifle and a vest yourself, or
- call SWAT, or
- flee.

[Covert Mission]

Para,

Of course, that old cliche couldn't be more true about bringing a long gun to a long gun fight.

"Is that a club in your pants leg or a sawed off gauge?" :D So, it's Mr. Glock with me most of the time.

[David Armstrong]

And as a result, the agents got their backsides handed to them on a platter where a bit of common sense and humility (by not pursuing and attempting an immediate stop) might have offered more favorable odds.

Again, that is great hindsight, so it is easy to say. BUt at the time the agents had to make a decsion based on what they felt was best. Do you really think any of the agents thought "wow, we're big bad and macho, so lets do something that probably won't work just so we can get shot up!"?
No. Just like lots of officers they did what they thought was best to preserve the safety of the community. Letting the BGs go would not have been an option for me, particularly given the superiority in numbers for LE.
They "changed their goals"? Is that criminal justice degree lingo for "They overreached and got the stuffing knocked out of them?"
No. That is cop talk for reacting and responding to changes in situations.
To claim some clandestine knowledge and offering "trust me, I've seen the reports" as some type of moral authority as to which questions have been sufficiently answered and criticisms addressed is condescending and disingenuous at best.
Nobody has said anything about clandestine knowledge or "trust me." What has been offered is that when one knows the whole story, when one has taken the time to look at all the information, one gets a better perspective of what went on and why. If you consider suggesting people get all the information they can about a subject is condescending, so be it.

[Jager1]

"wow, we're big bad and macho, so lets do something that probably won't work just so we can get shot up!"?

No. Actually, I believe they thought the suspects would be easily overcome or would simply roll over. I've stated as much. They DID get shot up (as a result) and "changing goals" proved to be a pretty poor decision, no matter how you measure it.

And that's why, folks, that the Miami Shootout became one of the most talked about incidents in LE history in the last fifty years.

Because the agents made all the right decisions to benefit citizens in the community and bad decision making on their part played no part whatsoever. :rolleyes:

I have to wonder whatever happened to those early debriefing reports that clearly pointed out the numerous personal foibles and tactical mistakes made by the FBI that day? (From Night Watch)

[David Armstrong]

They DID get shot up (as a result) and "changing goals" proved to be a pretty poor decision, no matter how you measure it.
True, if you measure it with that 20-20 hindsight. I guess you can disregard that it is the same decision that virtually any other officer at that time, given that same situation, would have made.
Because the agents made all the right decisions to benefit citizens in the community and bad decision making on their part played no part whatsoever.
Yes, they did what they did to reduce the danger to the community. It was a good decision given the information available to them, the situation as it was known at the time, and the alternatives available at the time. It was a good decision that would have been decided the same way by hundreds of thousands of officers at that time. Maybe it can be considered a bad decision from the perspective of the Monday morning quarterback, but it's easy to make those decisions on Monday morning.

Quoted from FM12:
Jager: Tell us of the shoot outs you've been involved in, were they more of a SWAT environment like the FBI shoot-out currently discussed, or more of a one-on-one type scenario? Maybe even both, perhaps?

[obxned]

It is tactics - no guns can overcome some of the brain-dead things that were done. A mega-death ray gun that is lost on the floor of a vehicle is no better than a pea shooter.

The whole thing screams 'situational awareness' and preparedness.

[jabotinsky]

Interesting thread, intelligent posts on both sides. The OP asked if the problem was ballistics or tactics. When some folks say tactics, they're taking heat from other posters, some apparently ex-LE, who say that we shouldn't second-guess or Monday morning quarterback the tactics used because the agents are heroes and those who haven't been in the line of fire don't have the right to raise such issues. Interesting little dynamic. My take is that mindset played a bigger role than equipment in this tragic event. But we still live with the repercussions. To admit relying on 22lr or 9mm ammo for SD in these forums is to court ex-communication.

[JollyRoger]

OK back to the original issue: I doubt a different handgun caliber would have made a big difference, except possibly when McNeil was shooting through the front windshield of the bad guys' car before he got hit, he might have had a slightly better chance of tagging Platt with a different caliber that would have punched throught the windshield better-may or may not have made a difference as Platt continued on with a fatal wound later in the fight.

Tactics were actually pretty sound, with agents using cover appropriately, etc. A couple of notable exceptions were the ramming the car initially, which the agents were not trained to do, and Dove and Grogan dropping their guard momentarily when Platt was charging them from out of their immediate view.

Equipment played a big part here, largely due to Bureau policies which were sound 99% of the time. Nevertheless, a couple rifles for the good guys might have radically changed the results. An eyeglasses strap which would have prevented Grogan from losing his glasses might have made a big difference, as it would have put him in the fight and he was an excellent marksman. More ammo, as Dove had expended all his rounds at the time he was killed. Autos vs. revolvers: McNeil was attempting to reload his revolver when he was hit through his vest by Platt's rifle - a quicker reload might have made a difference.

[David Armstrong]

When some folks say tactics, they're taking heat from other posters, some apparently ex-LE, who say that we shouldn't second-guess or Monday morning quarterback the tactics used because the agents are heroes and those who haven't been in the line of fire don't have the right to raise such issues.
I think the heat is not directed at those who suggest that better tactics could have been used. IMO the heat is directed at those who suggest the tactics and choices of action were chosen for other than legitimate reasons on the part of the agents, or suggestions that the agents were somehow making bad decisions that others in their spot would not have taken. Again, given the information available to them at the time, the training given at the time, the state of law enforcement at the time, it is apparent the tactics were normal, acceptable, and expected. That they didn't work out as expected does not make the tactics bad.

[Jager1]

When some folks say tactics, they're taking heat from other posters, some apparently ex-LE, who say that we shouldn't second-guess or Monday morning quarterback the tactics used because the agents are heroes and those who haven't been in the line of fire don't have the right to raise such issues. Interesting little dynamic.

Yes, it is. Similar elitist mindset that contributed to the debacle in the first place would be my guess. ;)

[nemoaz]

I guess you can disregard that it is the same decision that virtually any other officer at that time, given that same situation, would have made.I don't get this argument. I don't know of many people that would have left the station without at least a shotgun. (I know rifles weren't common then, but the WERE available to the Miami FBI agents and the two SWAT Agent could have brought the MP5's or other longarm and high threat body armor that was probably in their locker or in the other appropriate place they kept that stuff.). I think you'd have to admit that carrying their shotguns in the trunk was suspect. I don't know many people that would not at least have had their body armor in the sedan, rather than in the trunk. Finally, I don't know anyone who would have confronted known violent suspects who were parading their long arms by getting in front of the suspect vehicle and attempting to box it. True, tactics have changed now. But not that much.

Because the agents made all the right decisions to benefit citizens in the community and bad decision making on their part played no part whatsoever. Yes, they did what they did to reduce the danger to the community. It was a good decision given the information available to them, the situation as it was known at the time, and the alternatives available at the time. It was a good decision that would have been decided the same way by hundreds of thousands of officers at that time. Maybe it can be considered a bad decision from the perspective of the Monday morning quarterback, but it's easy to make those decisions on Monday morning.Not following you here. I know they were concerned about public safety, but they already had allowed the vehicle to enter a residential area before they initiated the "Felony Stop". They knew or at least had a good idea that the guys used military tactics and semiauto high capacity rifles. They knew the bad guys didn't mind shooting people. Just letting the vehicle continue until the cavalry arrived was an option. I know their heart was in the right place, and there's no doubt they just wanted to get the bad guys into custody... but I'm don't think they processed the information well even under the circumstances.

I know that sometimes, you just go. The first guy is never wrong. And you have to make the best of a bad situation. However, I'm sure the surviving bureau guys would agree that they could have done things differently. And everyone who wears a badge and gun for a living has made lackadaisical mistakes.

I've never seen it reported, but I wonder how many of those guys had ever done a traffic stop or slapped handcuffs on a subject. A few decades ago, the Bureau didn't value LE experience the way they do today.

None of my comments should be construed to diminish their status as heroes one bit. They still managed to kill two well-armed and well-trained criminals without civilian casualties. And I doubt that most of the guys criticizing here could even qualify on a stress course, but that just goes with the territory. LE gets intense scrutiny. The Bureau gets the worst of all.

[Covert Mission]

A few decades ago, the Bureau didn't value LE experience the way they do today.

I've heard that. As I've re-imagined what I might have done with a life in LE had I taken the another road, I would have done 3-5 yrs with a major agency like LAPD to get some intense street experience, before going to FBI or the like. I remember meeting an FBI agent at one of their LA task force outposts, and he was geared up! Tac belt, 3 mags, flashlight, cuffs, full size gun, on all the time while in the office. In fact he wore it all the time. An ex street cop, he sneered at colleagues who took their paddle holsters off and put them in the drawer while in the office. As I recall, an FBI office had been assaulted by an armed crazy and shot up not too long before, and many agents had been caught unarmed. He said, "That will never happen to me."

[Spade Cooley]

I believe they had a false impression that bad guys lay down and surrender when they hear the words, "FBI". These guys wanted a fight and had the artillery to get it done. Pistols against rifles is no match. Back in the days of Ness, they had good sense. The same thing happened in LA in the North Hollywood Bank Robbery. Now the LAPD is equiped with a lot more rifles.

[David Armstrong]

I don't get this argument. I don't know of many people that would have left the station without at least a shotgun.
They had some shotguns, and at least one was used.
I think you'd have to admit that carrying their shotguns in the trunk was suspect.
No, not at all. Trunk carry was quite common, particularly in unmarked vehicles.
I don't know many people that would not at least have had their body armor in the sedan, rather than in the trunk.
Again, differerent times and different ideas. At the time of the shootout, I would hazard a guess that less than 1/2 the cops in the US even had body armor at the time, and only a very small percentage wore it regularly or kept it handy.
Finally, I don't know anyone who would have confronted known violent suspects who were parading their long arms by getting in front of the suspect vehicle and attempting to box it.
I'm not sure who you know and what they do. Boxing is still used today as a tactic to prevent violent suspects from getting away, and in this incident it was deliberately chosen based on what the agents thought would reduce the danger to the public.
Just letting the vehicle continue until the cavalry arrived was an option.
Yes, there were lots of options. They could have let the badguys go on until the badguys found a location that was even more dangerous to the public and put the agents in more danger. That was an option.
However, I'm sure the surviving bureau guys would agree that they could have done things differently.
Everybody agrees they could have done things differently. The question is whether what they did was appropriate given the time, the situation, the circumstances, the knowledge, etc.
I've never seen it reported, but I wonder how many of those guys had ever done a traffic stop or slapped handcuffs on a subject.
Given the background of the agents, I'd think they were quite familiar with standard LE practices. In fact, that is what I keep saying--they did what virtually any LEO of thta time would have done in that situation.

[jabotinsky]

The OP wanted to know if the incident pointed to a need to change tactics or calibers. Whether or not they were the norm at the FBI at the time is irrelevant...we're not trying to fault the agents for their actions. Clearly the FBI felt some weapons issues needed to be addressed and clearly they felt tactics needed to be reassessed. That takes nothing away from the diligence or bravery of the agents. But it surprises me that discussions about tactical lesson from the shootout evoke such defensiveness from some of my esteemed forum members. Let's just say the agents did the very best that could be expected of them given the historic time frame and agency norms. Now, can we talk about what happened and what we can learn without being sent up on charges of treason?

[Capt Charlie]

Even the best of threads has a life span, and this one's approaching geriatric. We're going 'round and 'round the mulberry bush here folks, and I think just about every facet of it's been covered.

Time to put it to bed, methinks, but not without thanks to y'all for keeping this pretty civil, for the most part.

RIP.